Opinion
No. 2-912 / 02-1551
Filed November 15, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Michael R. Stewart, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child. AFFIRMED.
Julie B. Fisher of Clements, Pothoven, Stravers, Yates Fisher, Oskaloosa, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Richard Scott, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Jeffrey A. Smith of Smith Law Office, Oskaloosa, for mother.
Randy DeGeest of DeGeest Law Office, Oskaloosa, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child. He claims the State did not present sufficient evidence to warrant termination of his parental rights and the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite him with his child. We affirm.
Sean and Sara are the parents of Tara, who was born in November 2000. The child was removed from the mother's care in March 2001 when she was committed for being seriously mentally impaired. Tara was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b) (1999).
The juvenile court entered an order terminating the parents' rights on September 4, 2002. Sean's rights were terminated under section 232.116(1)(h) (child three or younger, child CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned home) (Supp. 2001). Sean now appeals.
The juvenile court cited the previous code numbers which were in effect prior to the amendment of section 232.116(1) on April 24, 2001. We will use the current form of the section.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of Sean's parental rights. Sean was unable to recognize Sara's inability to take care of Tara, and he showed no understanding of Sara's problems. The parents had a volatile relationship. Although Sean participated in visitation, he did not use visits to further his bond with Tara, but instead argued with service providers. Sean also participated in services. The juvenile court found, however, "To the date of the termination hearing the father had shown no progress in his ability to care for the child." We conclude Sean's parental rights were properly terminated.
Sean did not raise his reasonable efforts arguments before the juvenile court, and we determine this issue is not preserved for our review. See In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). We also note Sean has not stated what additional services he could have received.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.